Gujarat Court August 1988 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Bharatkumar Ishwarbhai Patel Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-12-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ1727; (1989)1GLR449
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The petitioner has been detained pursuant to the order dt. March 5, 1988 passed by the District Magistrate, Bharuch, under the provisions of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The order has been passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community.2. In the grounds of detention it is disclosed that the petitioner was running a fair-price shop at village Kavitha, Taluka Bharuch, in respect of which the licence was issued in the name of one Bipinchandra Jagdishbhai Patel. The petitioner himself posed to be Bipinchandra Jagdishbhai Patel before the public as well as before the relevant Government Officers. He has signed as Bipinchandra Jagdisbhai Patel in various Government records and in the records maintained for purposes of running fair-price shop. Thus h...
Acron Pharmaceuticals Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-11-1988
Reported in: 1989(23)LC229(Gujarat)
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. The short question which arises in this petition is, whether it is open to the revenue authorities to make a demand without following the procedure laid down in Section 11-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1.944 ('the Act, hereafter). In the present case a notice of demand. Annexure 'A' dated 19th April, 1988, came to be issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise-Range 111, Division I, Ahmedabad, calling upon the petitioner to pay the basic excise duty of Rs. 24,487,91 being the difference between the duty paid at 5 per cent and to be paid at 15 per cent in respect of the clearances effected between 1st October, 1987 and 29th February, 1988 on behalf of Messrs Acron Laboratory Private Limited and a further sum of Rs. l1,883.49 being the difference in duty in respect of clearances effected between 1st October, 1987 and 29th February, 1988 on behalf of Messrs Goplani Pharmaceuticals. Admittedly this demand was not preceded by any notice under Section 11-A of th...
Memon Yakubbhai Janmohmed and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-10-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ1843; (1989)2GLR862
1 to 6. xxxxx.The evidence of Rahimbhai and Yusufbhai is thus found to be acceptable as supported by the medical evidence and, therefore, we are inclined to agree with the learned trial Judge that the accused No. 1 gave two knife blows to the deceased and caused his death while accused No. 2 gave iron-pipe blow to Yusufbhai and caused him simple hurt. So far as accused No. 2 is concerned, it is obvious that he committed an offence punishable under Section 323 of the I.P. Code by giving a blow with an iron pipe to Yusufbhai. The question is as to what offence can be said to have been committed by the accused No. 1, Yakubbhai. The learned trial Judge has reached the conclusion that the incident was a sudden one in which the deceased was done to death by Yakubbhai and hence his act would be covered by Exception 4 to Section 300 of the I.P. Code. Exception 4 to Section 300 of the I.P. Code reads as follows:Exception 4 : Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditati...
Surajmal Kanaiyalal Soni Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-09-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ1678; (1989)1GLR44; (1990)2GLR207
J.P. Desai, J.1. The petitioner Surajmal Kanaiyalal Soni was arrested on 7-3-1988 and the prosecution case against him is that he was found in possession of about 10 K.G. of opium at that time, which was seized under a Panchnama. The investigating officer, after completing the investigation, submitted a report to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class on 31-5-1988 under Section 173(2) of the Cr. P.C., 1973. Samples from the opium were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis, but the report from the said Laboratory was not received up to 31-5-1988 and, therefore, the report was submitted to the Court under Sub-section (2) of Section 173 without forwarding the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory. This was done because 90 days were to expire about two days after 31-5-1988. The petitioner then moved for bail before the Court to Sessions at Vadodara. The said Misc. Criminal Application No. 320 of 1988 was heared by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Varodara who...
J.J. Shrimali Vs. District Development Officer, Mehsana and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-08-1988
Reported in: (1989)1GLR396
Ahmadi, J. 1. The short question which arises in this batch of petitions brought under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is whether 'Muster Karkoons' engaged on purely ad hoc and temporary basis for supervising scarcity relief works (or projects so called) started by the State Government and administered through the concerned District Panchayats are entitled to contended that their services cannot be terminated except in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the Act') notwithstanding the fact that their orders of appointment clearly stated that their employment will terminate on the winding up of the scarcity relief works. Is it necessary to follow the provisions contained in Chapter V-A or V-B of the Act for terminating the services of the petitioners on the premise that such termination amounts to retrenchment in law The orders of appointment issued by the District Development Officer, Mehsana, in terms provide that the appointme...
Ramesh Lallu Jakhra Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-08-1988
Reported in: (1989)2GLR850
A.P. Ravani, J.1. While granting furlough leave as provided under the provisions of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 (for short 'the Rules') is the Inspector General of Prisons who is the sanctioning authority as prescribed under the Rules, required to consult the appropriate Government as referred to in Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code? This in short is the question which has arisen in this petition.2. The petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 and be has been ordered to undergo R.I. for two years. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that as per the relevant provisions of 'the Rules', he has become entitled to one furlough Since his application for furlough was not granted, he preferred a Special Criminal Application in this High Court. As per an order dated July 26, 1988 this High Court (Coram: G.T. Nanavati and I.C. Bhatt, JJ.) directed the I.G. Prisons to decide the application of the petitioner on ...
Nareshkumar Ambalal Modi Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-04-1988
Reported in: (1989)1GLR288
B.S. Kapadia, J.1. The petitioners in the above two petitions have filed these petitions challenging the legality and validity of the detention orders passed against them with a prayer that writ of Habeas Corpus be issued by setting aside the orders of detention and they be set at liberty forthwith.2. The petitioners are detained pursuant to the detention orders dated 23-2-1988 passed by the Govt., of Gujarat on its being satisfied with respect to the petitioners, with a view to preventing them from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodity (edible oil) essential to the community, in exercise of the powers under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Act No. 7 of 1980). Both the petitioners were detained in execution of the said orders on 25-2-1988. The petitioners were also supplied with the grounds of detention.3. So far as Nareshkumar Ambalal, the petitioner i...
Arun Paper Products Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-03-1988
Reported in: (1989)1GLR51
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This is a typical case where a defaulter is able to invoke various principles of law for the purpose of getting a mandatory order to re-connect his disconnected telephone. The admitted facts are that the telephone, which stands in the name of the appellant, fell into arrears regarding the telephone charges and the said telephone was disconnected and subsequently, the other telephone which is also in the name of the appellant, was disconnected for the arrears that fell due in respect of the disconnection of the previous phone. The appellant herein came forward with the Special Civil Application, praying for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents therein to re-connect telephone No. 877267, lying at A/1/1, Arun Products, GIDC, Vatva, Ahmedabad, stating that the action of disconnection and the intimation dated 11-2-1986 are clearly illegal, malafide, erroneous and as such, it has to be set aside. The learned single Judge of our High Court, after issuing n...
Bithko Traders (Through Its Partner Jyotiben P. Shah) and anr. Vs. V.M ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-01-1988
Reported in: (1989)1GLR169
M.B. Shah, J.1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 30th December, 1983 passed below Ex. 1 in Darkhast No. 942 of 1982 the petitioners (original judgment debtors) have filed this revision application.2. The limited question involved in this revision application 18 whether the executing Court can permit the judgment-debtor to lead the evidence to prove the alleged payment made towards the decretal amount which is not certified by the executing Court as required under Rule 2 of Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code.3. It is the case of the petitioners that as per the decree in Summary Suit No. 479 of 1981 the decree for an amount of Rs. l,40,000/-with 6 per cent interest per annum thereon from the date of the decree till realisation was passed against the petitioners and it was agreed that the decretal amount was to be paid by monthly instalments of Rs. 3500/-. The first instalment was to commence from 1st September, 1982. It is their say that in pursuance of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›